Finally - some official word on the planet thing

[The Folk Prophet]

...Brethren, 225,000 of you are here tonight. I suppose 225,000 of you may become gods. There seems to be plenty of space out there in the universe. And the Lord has proved that he knows how to do it. I think he could make, or probably have us help make, worlds for all of us, for every one of us 225,000....

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1975/10/the-privilege-of-holding-the-priesthood?

M.

To be fair, the wording used by Pres. Kimball here includes "seems", "could", "probably". There is not concrete expression of us each having our own planet. Secondly, and more importantly, the term "world" is much broader than the term "planet" and does not necessarily even mean "planet". We don't know what kind of "world" God dwells in. We don't know if it is a planet or a sun or something different altogether. God's "world" is not our "world". The obvious point Pres. Kimball intended to make here was that there is plenty of space in the infinity of the universe, not that we would all get our own planets.

Now, to be fair on the other hand, one can see how this statement could be translated to mean we'll all get our own planets. But, on the other hand (I feel like Tevye now) most anti-Mormon stuff comes from previous members who heard statements like this and either never bothered to actually learn the truth or didn't care about the truth, and thereby, either accidentally or intentionally, created the caricatures therefrom. My personal opinion, Ed Decker knew very well that he was lying when he put these half-truth lies out there. He was intentionally trying to hurt the church, and he built the caricatures purposefully to that end. To put any blame on the church is, imo, entirely invalid.

On the other hand....NO...there is no other hand... :) (Fiddler on the Roof quote...for those of you not in the know.)

[mnn727]

Finrock, in a way it is. You and Elphaba have acknowledged that this belief is valid and has been taught by the LDS church. But some members say they have never heard such a belief taught and would rather blame anti-Mormons for the belief than acknowledge that it is legit.

M.

That's not it at all. Its the fact that that particular statement (which I have never heard in Church and I doubt very many have ever heard it put exactly like that) is designed to shock people and does not explain what it means "to inherit all the father has'

Even the quotes Elphaba quoted do not make that particular statement and if read in context go a long ways in an explanation of what they mean..

I stand by my statement, and agree with churches statement:

The anti-Mormon concept is that we'll be "given" our own "planet" as some sort of reward for good behavior. This is not true even if there are a few words of truth in it. The false words render the overall concept false. Any LDS person who believes this is believing things incorrectly. This has never been taught by the church and is entirely invalid. It is not legit.

Edited to add: and I agree whole-heartedly with Finrocks post below

Edited March 5, 2014 by mnn727

[Finrock]

Hi Maureen. I hope you are well! :)

Finrock, in a way it is. You and Elphaba have acknowledged that this belief is valid and has been taught by the LDS church. But some members say they have never heard such a belief taught and would rather blame anti-Mormons for the belief than acknowledge that it is legit.

M.

The way that these statements are taken out of context reminds me of how the ancient Christian church was accused of being cannibals because they "ate and drank the flesh and blood of their God".

This argument was used anciently to disparage the Church and as an excuse to attack them. The Church's opponents also quoted scripture and others of the ancient Church to prove their point. But, obviously the quotes, even though factual, did not do justice to the actual practice of the Eucharist because it left out context and did not include all of the other doctrines and truths that went along with the Eucharist.

It is the same thing here. Yes, there have been those who have said we will get planets but just stating that alone, without any further clarification or even desiring to know the full truth, is a lie. It doesn't correctly encapsulate the underlying principle and truths that goes along with it. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ might have misunderstood what these statements mean but because members do not understand doctrine it does not mean that it is the Church's fault. Anyone who truly wants to understand Mormonism will not be satisfied with singular statements that are stated to bring about shock and dislike towards the Church. They will want to investigate what it really means and what the underlying principle or principles are which enlighten that statement and give it its full meaning.

-Finrock

Edited March 5, 2014 by Finrock
Grammar

[Anddenex]

Look, I am not saying anti-Mormons don't exist, or they haven't done their damage. We all know they do and have. But far too often they are blamed, especially by people too young or too new to know otherwise, for the creation of misleading issues the Church finds difficult and/or embarrassing when those issues originated, and should have been dealt with by, the Church itself. IMO, this is one of those issues.

By the way, when we discussed the characteristics of our respective planets/worlds in early morning Seminary one day back in the early '70s, I decided that on my planet, kittens would never grow up.

Elphaba

I would agree with this sentiment here Elphaba. I was born in the 70's and was taught in seminary these concepts also.

What this reminds me of is when, on my mission, we would be asked "Do you wear Jesus Jamas?" This is the specious twist I am referring, and I whole heartedly agree that the Church needs to come forward more, and I think they are doing a better job now. Technically, yep, we wear Jesus Jamas, but the reality we don't.

And by the way, I have already decided dragons will exist on my planet...I have got dibs on this one Elphaba! (EDIT: and they will eat your pretty little kittens -- no apologies)

Edited March 5, 2014 by Anddenex

[Maureen]

That's not it at all. Its the fact that that particular statement (which I have never heard in Church and I doubt very many have ever heard it put exactly like that) is designed to shock people and does not explain what it means "to inherit all the father has'

Even the quotes Elphaba quoted do not make that particular statement and if read in context go a long ways in an explanation of what they mean..

I stand by my statement, and agree with churches statement:

Edited to add: and I agree whole-heartedly with Finrocks post below

So then your objection is only in how non-LDS interpret the belief and not in the belief itself? Is that what you're saying?

M.

[prisonchaplain]

That depends. Many anti-Mormon claims are twisting of concepts to make them sound weird or creepy or sci-fi.

First, there is no doubt but that some ex-LDS, and some aggressive Fundamentalists intentionally manipulate your doctrines to sound bizarre. There has been some deception from these corners.

It may be healthy to realize, though, that no matter how well-phrased, some LDS doctrines are going to be 'wierd, creepy or sci-fi' to evangelical ears. They are different to us. We believe God is eternally unique, and that He alone creates out of nothing--that He alone is eternal. Yes, we will achieve a kind of exaltation--but we do not expect to become what He is--to inherit a nature that is deity.

So, some LDS, including leaders, speculate about what exaltation will look like. They wonder aloud if it does mean that there might be infinite worlds, and that the most faithful may inherit one, in which they are the God.

That can't not be shocking to evangelical ears. Some will respond to this shock by asking questions and being open-hearted. Others will simply dismiss it, and politely withdraw. Finally, some will contend, argue, and seek to destroy the perceived heresy.

I confess that in some ways LDS beliefs about the future do seem "sci fi." There is even speculation that LDS authors gravitate towards the sci fi genre, in part, because of the unique worldview.

“Is It Something in the Water?†Why Mormons Write Science Fiction and Fantasy — Mormon Artist

IMHO, the best course is to own the uniqueness, explain it and glory in it. Down-playing your beliefs about the future betrays a sense of shame--one that probably isn't really there.

FWIW some Pentecostal churches are downplaying tongues and other gifts of the Holy Spirit, because they think those aspects will scare newcomers away. I find that shameful. We choose to own our beliefs, explain them, and glory in them. Most respect us for it, whether they agree or not.

Edited March 5, 2014 by prisonchaplain

[The Folk Prophet]

I would agree with this sentiment here Elphaba. I was born in the 70's and was taught in seminary these concepts also.

What this reminds me of is when, on my mission, we would be asked "Do you wear Jesus Jamas?" This is the specious twist I am referring, and I whole heartedly agree that the Church needs to come forward more, and I think they are doing a better job now. Technically, yep, we wear Jesus Jamas, but the reality we don't.

And by the way, I have already decided dragons will exist on my planet...I have got dibs on this one Elphaba! (EDIT: and they will eat your pretty little kittens -- no apologies)

Exactly. We also hear teachings that if we are righteous that we can be protected, even physically in certain cases, by the Jamas in question. To thus use "magic" in describing them, as the antis are wont to do, is just as much a lie, even though, from a certain perspective, one could very reasonably argue that protection, even physical, could be viewed as a form of "magic". The same argument could be made for the miracles Jesus or other prophets performed. And yet any reasonable Christian would never refer to what Jesus did as "magic". To put it into terms like that misses the reality of what miracles are.

So does it become the church's responsibility to clarify that miracles are not magic, and that describing them thus is a caricature? Perhaps, yes. But that is a response to the wrong-headed-ness of others, not a fixing of something the church did wrong in the first place. As the world goes further into the darkness the church will need to react differently than they might have when the world was more in the light. That doesn't prove the church irresponsible in their past methods.

[dahlia]

Ladies and gents - I give you several verses from 'If You Could Hie to Kolob'

If you could hie to Kolob

In the twinkling of an eye,

And then continue onward

With that same speed to fly,

Do you think that you could ever,

Through all eternity,

Find out the generation

Where Gods began to be?

2. Or see the grand beginning,

Where space did not extend?

Or view the last creation,

Where Gods and matter end?

Methinks the Spirit whispers,

"No man has found 'pure space,'

Nor seen the outside curtains,

Where nothing has a place."

3. The works of God continue,

And worlds and lives abound;

Improvement and progression

Have one eternal round.

There is no end to matter;

There is no end to space;

There is no end to spirit;

There is no end to race.

I suggest there is enough to think about in these words to make heads explode. We've got space, we've got matter, we've got gods beginning and ending, we've got the boundaries of space, and we've got something that looks an awful lot like reincarnation ("Improvement and progression Have one eternal round").

Your research paper is due at the end of the term.

[The Folk Prophet]

First, there is no doubt but that some ex-LDS, and some aggressive Fundamentalists intentionally manipulate your doctrines to sound bizarre. There has been some deception from these corners.

It may be healthy to realize, though, that no matter how well-phrased, some LDS doctrines are going to be 'wierd, creepy or sci-fi' to evangelical ears. They are different to us. We believe God is eternally unique, and that He alone creates out of nothing--that He alone is eternal. Yes, we will achieve a kind of exaltation--but we do not expect to become what He is--to inherit a nature that is deity.

So, some LDS, including leaders, speculate about what exaltation will look like. They wonder aloud if it does mean that there might be infinite worlds, and that the most faithful may inherit one, in which they are the God.

That can't not be shocking to evangelical ears. Some will respond to this shock by asking questions and being open-hearted. Others will simply dismiss it, and politely withdraw. Finally, some will contend, argue, and seek to destroy the perceived heresy.

I confess that in some ways LDS beliefs about the future do seem "sci fi." There is even speculation that LDS authors gravitate towards the sci fi genre, in part, because of the unique worldview.

“Is It Something in the Water?†Why Mormons Write Science Fiction and Fantasy — Mormon Artist

IMHO, the best course is to own the uniqueness, explain it and glory in it. Down-playing your beliefs about the future betrays a sense of shame--one that probably isn't really there.

FWIW some Pentecostal churches are downplaying tongues and other gifts of the Holy Spirit, because they think those aspects will scare newcomers away. I find that shameful. We choose to own our beliefs, explain them, and glory in them. Most respect us for it, whether they agree or not.

I cannot agree more, and have had a variety of different arguments on this board because I feel this way. When people ask if Mormons believe "such-n-such", if we do believe that then I feel strongly that we should say, emphatically, "YES!" Instead we get a lot of qualified, apologetic answers akin to, "Well, SOME believe that, but we don't know for sure." Well that can be said of any doctrine.

What I like about these articles the church is producing is that it gives an easy reference for saying, "YES!" It should be noted that nothing in these articles is new. These articles are not releasing anything that hasn't been stated before. In this particular article, it clarifies that unequivocally we do believe that man may become as God and that God was once as man is now. It should, hopefully, no longer be viable for an LDS person to respond to such questions with "We don't really know."

However, what we believe is what we believe. And a twisting of those beliefs to sound more or less shocking than they are should be put down as falsehoods.

[The Folk Prophet]

3. The works of God continue,

And worlds and lives abound;

Improvement and progression

Have one eternal round.

There is no end to matter;

There is no end to space;

There is no end to spirit;

There is no end to race.

...and we've got something that looks an awful lot like reincarnation ("Improvement and progression Have one eternal round").

No reincarnation. Improvement and progression refer to a continuation of lives (aka a continuation of seeds), a continuation of worlds, a continuation of gods, etc. One eternal round means that so it has always been and so it will always be.

[mnn727]

So then your objection is only in how non-LDS interpret the belief and not in the belief itself? Is that what you're saying?

M.

Its the Spirit of that saying that I disagree with. And anyone in the Church that makes that statement is ignorant of the Doctrine of Eternal Progression.

I agree that IF we endure to the end and IF after that we learn all the lessons we need to in order to become like Heavenly Father then we will have the opportunity to create worlds and populate them.

Those are some pretty big 'ifs' but some will make it (will everyone? well we do have all of eternity to do it) any way the statement 'we get our own planet when we die' doesn't even come close to explaining the doctrine of Eternal Progression. That particular statement is designed to show arrogance and cause others to think we are blaspheming.

I guess the answer to your question is Yes, but if we reach that level, I do not believe it will be just one planet, as H.F. states in scripture that he has 'worlds without number'

As L Tom Perry said

“Peter and John had little secular learning, being termed ignorant. But they knew the vital things of life, that God lives and that the crucified, resurrected Lord is the Son of God. They knew the path to eternal life. This they learned in a few decades of their mortal life. Their righteous lives opened the door to godhood for them and creation of worlds with eternal increase. For this they would probably need, eventually, a total knowledge of the sciences. But whereas Peter and John had only decades to learn and do the spiritual, they have already had nineteen centuries in which to learn the secular or the geology of the earth, the zoology and physiology and psychology of the creatures of the earth. Mortality is the time to learn first of God and the gospel and to perform the ordinances. After our feet are set firmly on the path to eternal life we can amass more knowledge of the secular things”

from https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1997/10/receive-truth?lang=eng&query=zoology

We've got a lot to learn before we even come close to creating our own worlds.

Edited March 6, 2014 by mnn727

[Anddenex]

So does it become the church's responsibility to clarify that miracles are not magic, and that describing them thus is a caricature? Perhaps, yes. But that is a response to the wrong-headed-ness of others, not a fixing of something the church did wrong in the first place. As the world goes further into the darkness the church will need to react differently than they might have when the world was more in the light. That doesn't prove the church irresponsible in their past methods.

No, but I think with all the misinformation regarding our doctrine and beliefs that it is wise that the Church is publishing responses now, such that people can be correctly informed.

As with anything, the responsibility is laid at the feet of the hearer, and to be careful not to judge that which is of God to be the devil and vice-versa.

[bytebear]

I look at it this way. The concept of us becoming gods and populating worlds is the natural conclusion based on the knowledge we have (including some very compelling Bible verses).

In a parallel thought, the majority of Christendom believes in a Trinity of persons who make up God. Although we don't agree on the details, I get that it's a natural conclusion based on their knowledge.

Now, neither doctrine is perfectly spelled out, but are inferred from current understanding.

But, if one were to paint the Trinity as a three headed God, or a blob like creature who can shape shift and is really good at ventriloquism and has multiple personalities, I would have to say that they really don't understand the nuances or nature of the Trinity.

Similarly the concept of eternal progression is far nuanced, and frankly if Christians were constantly mocked for believing in a triune God, I would probably downplay the three persons, and emphasize the monotheistic aspect of God.

Edited March 6, 2014 by bytebear